G.R. No. 251967 . June 14, 2022
BERNADETTE LOURDES B. ABEJO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION BOARD, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON, MICHAEL AGUINALDO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB) was created under Republic Act No. 8043 . From 2008 to 2010, due to a heavy volume of applications from prospective adoptive parents, members of the ICAB were asked to help the Inter-Country Adoption Placement Committee (ICPC) review the dossiers. To compensate for this work, an unnumbered memorandum dated 14 August 2008 (later increased by another memorandum dated 16 April 2009) granted ICAB members additional remuneration of P250.00, later P500.00, for each application reviewed. After audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2011-009-101-(08-10) disallowing the total amount of P162,855.00 paid as additional remuneration. The disallowance was based on the grounds that the grant had no legal basis, was contrary to DBM Budget Circular No. 2003-5 and the General Appropriations Act, and violated Section 5 of RA 8043 which states that ICAB members are only entitled to a per diem of P1,500.00 per meeting. Petitioner Bernadette Lourdes B. Abejo, as Executive Director and approving officer, was held liable to return the entire disallowed amount. The COA National Government Section and later the COA Proper affirmed the disallowance. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the COA Proper.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COA correctly disallowed the additional remuneration given to ICAB members.
2. Whether petitioner should be held liable to return the disallowed amount.

RULING

The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Supreme Court upheld the disallowance but exonerated petitioner from liability.
1. On the Disallowance: The Court ruled that the additional remuneration or honoraria was correctly disallowed. The grant violated Section 5 of RA 8043, which explicitly limits the compensation of ICAB members to a per diem of P1,500.00 for each meeting actually attended. The law does not authorize any other form of compensation. Furthermore, the payment contravened Section 4 of DBM Budget Circular No. 2003-5, which states that honoraria may only be paid to individuals who are not salaried officials or employees of the agency, or if they are, they must not be receiving per diems for the same activity. Since ICAB members were already receiving per diems, they were prohibited from receiving additional honoraria for the same function of reviewing dossiers, which is inherent to their duties as Board members. The Court rejected the argument that the review work was a “special project” justifying extra compensation, as it was not separate from ICAB’s mandate under RA 8043.
2. On Petitioner’s Liability: The Court ruled that petitioner, as the approving officer, is not liable to return the disallowed amount. The Court applied the doctrine of good faith. Petitioner, in approving the payments, relied on the memoranda issued by Undersecretary Luwalhati F. Pablo, the Alternate Chairperson of ICAB. There was no showing that petitioner acted with malice, gross negligence, or bad faith. As a subordinate officer, she is not civilly liable for acts done in good faith in the performance of her duties under the Administrative Code. The persons primarily liable to return the disallowed amounts are the ICAB members who received the additional remuneration, as they are recipients who are presumed to know the law limiting their compensation.
Procedural Note: The Court noted that the petition was dismissible for failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the COA Proper, a condition precedent for a certiorari petition. However, it exercised its discretion to resolve the case on the merits as the issues raised were the same as those already passed upon by the COA Proper, constituting an exception to the rule.